Usage Score
8.4
Player Dossier
2009-2012Texas A&M
Kenric McNeal
WR • 6'1" • Spring, TX, USA
Reliable chain-moverPossession profile
Kenric McNeal reads as a reliable chain-mover based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Efficiency
60.9
Consistency
44.5
Season Value
50.9
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2012 Postseason · Texas A&M
091010111212
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 1
- Seasons Tracked
- 6
- Program Path
- Texas A&M
- Peak Game
- Peak game by takeover score: Oklahoma State
Scouting Read
Best season and peak-game context are pinned here so the rest of the page can stay analytical without losing the headline story.
Kenric McNeal, WR. Best season Best season by value score: 2012 Postseason · Texas A&M. Kenric McNeal reads as a reliable chain-mover based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Kenric McNeal played WR for Texas A&M. Across 4 tracked seasons, Kenric McNeal recorded 47 passing yards, 665 receiving yards, and 5 touchdowns. His top tracked season came in 2012 with Texas A&M.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2012 Postseason
Texas A&M paired 265 primary output with 60.9 efficiency.
Supporting note
2012 Postseason role shape
target-driven usage with 60.9 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value stayed steady
2012 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: Missouri
Win with an explosive receiving profile. It landed in the 100th percentile of the selected season.
Analysis workspace
Season Workbench
Filter the strongest season sample, inspect game-level shape, and then drop into the full log without losing the story of the year.
Season Explorer
Understand the selected season before dropping into the full game log.
2012 Postseason · Texas A&M
Games
10
Receiving Yards / G
26.5
Efficiency
60.9
Usage
8.4
Consistency
44.5
Best Game by takeover score
Oklahoma
Hover a point or expand a game row to keep the active game context visible here.
Active game
Hover over a point
Hover or select a game to keep its context visible here without the page shifting around.
Game-by-Game Trend
Follow how the selected stat changes from one game to the next. Spikes mark standout outings, while dips show quieter weeks.
Chronological game order.
Game by game trend chart. Oklahoma: 0. Florida: 11. SMU: 55. Unknown: 30. Ole Miss: 8. LSU: 29. Mississippi State: 11. Alabama: 46. Unknown: -1. Missouri: 76
Volume vs Efficiency
Each dot is a game. Farther right means the player carried more of the workload, and higher means they were more efficient with those chances.
Low volumeHigh quality
High volumeHigh quality
Low volumeLower quality
High volumeLower quality
Volume on the x-axis, quality on the y-axis.
Volume versus efficiency scatter chart. Florida: 2 by 36.7. SMU: 2 by 100. Unknown: 1 by 100. Ole Miss: 2 by 26.7. LSU: 4 by 48.3. Mississippi State: 2 by 36.7. Alabama: 2 by 100. Unknown: 1 by 0. Missouri: 3 by 100
Split Comparison
Compare how this player performed across different situations. "Games" shows how many matchups are included in each split.
Wins32.7 · Games = 6 · +12.7 vs Losses
Losses20 · Games = 2 · -12.7 vs Wins
First Half20.8 · Games = 5 · -11.4 vs Second Half
Second Half32.2 · Games = 5 · +11.4 vs First Half
Game Log
Dense stat lines with inline explanations and season-linked highlights.
10 games
Featured metric
Receiving Yards
Top game by takeover score
Missouri
Best efficiency game
100 vs Missouri
| Result | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 1/5 | @ Oklahoma | W 41-13 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Sun 11/25 | vs Missouri | W 59-29 | — | 3 | 76 | 25.3 | 25.30 | 0 | 39 |
| Sat 11/17 | vs Unknown | — | — | 1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | 0 | 0 |
| Sat 11/10 | @ Alabama | W 29-24 | — | 2 | 46 | 23 | 23 | 0 | 32 |
| Sat 11/3 | @ Mississippi State | W 38-13 | — | 2 | 11 | 5.5 | 5.50 | 0 | 6 |
| Sat 10/20 | vs LSU | L 19-24 | — | 4 | 29 | 7.3 | 7.30 | 0 | 11 |
| Sat 10/6 | @ Ole Miss | W 30-27 | — | 2 | 8 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 5 |
| Sat 9/22 | vs Unknown | — | — | 1 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 1 | 30 |
| Sat 9/15 | @ SMU | W 48-3 | — | 2 | 55 | 27.5 | 27.50 | 1 | 42 |
| Sat 9/8 | vs Florida | L 17-20 | — | 2 | 11 | 5.5 | 5.50 | 0 | 8 |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
Texas A&M
2009-2012
Opening stop
Season Progression
200920102010201120122012
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 Regular Season | Texas A&M | 97 | 74.7 | 4.7 | — |
| 2010 Postseason | Texas A&M | 202 | 51.2 | 13.1 | 105 |
| 2010 Regular Season | Texas A&M | 202 | 51.2 | 13.1 | 0 |
| 2011 Regular Season | Texas A&M | 101 | 67.5 | 8 | -101 |
| 2012 Postseason | Texas A&M | 265 | 60.9 | 8.4 | 164 |
| 2012 Regular Season | Texas A&M | 265 | 60.9 | 8.4 | 0 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
Oklahoma State
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
65
Primary metric
65 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#2
Texas
64
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
64 receiving yards with a 71.1 efficiency score.
#3
Missouri
76
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
76 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#4
New Mexico
52
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
52 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#5
SMU
55
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
55 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2012 Postseason · Texas A&M
265 primary output · 60.9 efficiency · 8.4 usage
50.9
#2
2012 Regular Season · Texas A&M
50.9
265 primary · 60.9 efficiency · 8.4 usage
#3
2010 Postseason · Texas A&M
42.9
202 primary · 51.2 efficiency · 13.1 usage
Milestones
0
100+ receiving yards
0
8+ catch outings
0
2+ TD games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Recruit Profile
2★
Class 2020 · Rating 0.76
Ravenscroft School · Raleigh, NC
- Committed To
- East Carolina
- Commit Date
- Jan 1, 2020
Career Facts
1
Career teams
6
Seasons tracked
665
Career Receiving Yards
Data Context
Coverage spans 6 tracked seasons, 31 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.